But now two more formidable opponents appeared on the
field, who, by independent study, had arrived at a far more sensible
interpretation of the words of institution than that of Carlstadt, and
supported it with strong exegetical and rational arguments. Zwingli,
the Luther of Switzerland, and Oecolampadius, its Melanchthon, gave the
controversy a new and more serious turn.

Zwingli received the first suggestion of a
figurative interpretation (est = significat) from Erasmus and Wessel
through Honius; as Luther derived his first idea of a corporal presence
in the unchanged elements from Pierre d’Ailly.829829 The assertion of some biographers of Zwingli,
that he already at Glarus became acquainted with the writings of
Ratramnus and Wiclif, is without proof. He first intimates his view in
a letter to his teacher Wyttenbach, June 15, 1523, but as a secret.
(Opera, VII., 1. 297.) He published the letter of Honius, which
explains the est to be equivalent to significat, at
Zürich in March, 1525, but had received it in 1521 from two
learned visitors, Rhodius and Sagarus. See Gieseler, III. 1, 192 sq.,
note 27 (Germ. ed.); and especially Ullmann, l.c., II. 569
sq. He communicated his view, in a
confidential Latin letter, Nov. 16, 1524, to the Lutheran preacher,
Matthaeus Alber in Reutlingen, an opponent of Carlstadt, and based it
on Christ’s word, John 6:63, as excluding a carnal or
material manducation of his body and blood.830830Opera, III. 589. Walch gives a German
translation, XVII. 1881. Planck (II. 261 sqq.) quotes all the important
points of this letter.

A few months later (March, 1525) he openly
expressed his view with the same arguments in the "Commentary on the
True and False Religion."831831Opera, III. 145. The section on the
Lord’s Supper appeared also in a German translation.
Planck, II. 265 sqq.
This was three months after Luther had published his book against
Carlstadt. He does not men-tion Luther in either of these two writings,
but evidently aimed at him, and speaks of his view almost as
contemptuously as Luther had spoken of Carlstadt’s
view.

In the same year Oecolampadius, one of the most
learned and pious men of his age, appeared with a very able work in
defense of the same theory, except that he put the figure in the
predicate, and explained the words of institution (like Tertullian):
"hoc est figura corporis mei." He lays, how-ever, no stress on this
difference, as the sense is the same. He wrote with as much modesty and
moderation as learning and acuteness. He first made use of testimonies
of the church fathers, especially Augustin, who favors a spiritual
fruition of Christ by faith. Erasmus judged the arguments of
Oecolampadius to be strong enough to seduce the very elect.832832Ep. ad Budam Episc. Lingonensem, Oct. 2,
1525 (Op., III. 1, 892): "Exortum est novum dogma, in
Eucharistia nihil esse praeter panem et vinum. Id ut sit difficillimum
refellere, fecit Io. Oecolampadius qui tot testimoniis, tot argumentis
eam opinionem communiit, ut seduci posse videantur etiam electi."
Planck (II. 274): "Dass Oecolampad in dieser Schrift die ausgebreitetste
Gelehrsamkeit und den blendendsten oder treffendsten Scharfsinn zeigte,
dies haben selbst seine parteyischsten Gegner niemals
geläugnet; aber sie hätten wohl auch gestehen
dürfen, dass er die anständigste Bescheidenheit,
die würdigste Mässigung und gewiss auch die
redlichste Wahrheitsliebe darin gezeigt habe." Dr. Baur also, in his
Kirchengesch. IV. 90, speaks very highly of the book of Oecolampadius, and
gives a summary of it. Baur and Gieseler, among modern church
historians, clearly betray their Swiss sympathy in this controversy, as
well as Planck, although all of them are Germans of Lutheran
descent.

Several Swabian preachers, under the lead of
Brentius of Hall, replied to Oecolampadius, who (himself a Swabian by
birth) had dedicated his book to them with the request to examine and
review it. Their Syngramma Suevicum is much more important than
Bugenhagen’s epistle. They put forth the peculiar view
that the word of Christ puts into bread and wine the very body and
blood of Christ; as the word of Moses imparted a hearing power to the
brazen serpent; as the word of Christ, "Peace be unto you," imparts
peace; and the word, "Thy sins be forgiven," imparts pardon. But, by
denying that the body of Christ is broken by the hands, and chewed with
the teeth, they unwittingly approached the Swiss idea of a purely
spiritual manducation. Oecolampadius clearly demonstrated this
inconsistency in his Anti-syngramma (1526).836836 Walch, XX. 667; Planck, II. 281-311.
Köstlin and Dorner say that the Syngramma is more
Calvinistic than Lutheran. Pirkheimer of Nuernberg, and Billicum of
Nördlingen, likewise wrote against Oecolampadius, but
without adding any thing new.

The controversy reached its height in 1527 and
1528, when Zwingli and Luther came into direct conflict. Zwingli
combated Luther’s view vigorously, but respectfully,
fortiter in re, suaviter in modo, in a Latin book, under the peaceful
title, "Friendly Exegesis," and sent a copy to Luther with a letter,
April 1, 1527.837837 Even Löscher admits that Zwingli
treated Luther with great respect in this book. Comp. Planck, II. 470
sq.; Köstlin, II. 94 sqq. Luther
appeared nearly at the same time (early in 1527), but in a very
different tone, with a German book against Zwingli and Oecolampadius,
under the title, "That the Words of Christ: ’This is
my Body,’ stand fast. Against the Fanatics
(Schwarmgeister)."838838 He informed Stiefel, Jan. 1, 1527 (De Wette,
!II. 148), that he was writing a book against the "sacramentarii
turbatores." On March 2l, 1527 (III. 165), he informed the preacher
Ursinus that he had finished it, and warned him to avoid the
"Zwingliana et Oecolampadia sententia" as the very pest, since
it was "blasphema in Christi verbum et fidem." The work was
translated into German by M. Judex. The closing passages blaming Bucer
for accompanying a Latin version of
Luther’s Kirchenpostille and Bugenhagen’s commentary on
the Psalms with Zwinglian notes are omitted in the Wittenberg edition
of Luther’s Works, 1548. Amsdorf complained of this
omission, which was traced by some to Melanchthon, by others to
Rörer, the corrector of Luft’s printing
establishment. See Walch, XX. 53, and Erl. ed., XXX.
15. Here he
derives the Swiss view directly from the inspiration of the Devil. "How
true it is," he begins, "that the Devil is a master of a thousand
arts!839839Ein
Tausendkünstler, a myriad-minded trickster. He proves this
powerfully in the external rule of this world by bodily lusts, tricks,
sins, murder, ruin, etc., but especially, and above all measure, in
spiritual and external things which affect God’s honor
and our conscience. How he can turn and twist, and throw all sorts of
obstacles in the way, to prevent men from being saved and abiding in
the Christian truth!" Luther goes on to trace the working of the Devil
from the first corruptions of the gospel by heretics, popes, and
Councils, down to Carlstadt and the Zwinglians, and mentions the Devil
on every page. This is characteristic of his style of polemics against
the Sacramentarians, as well as the Papists. He refers all evil in the
world to the Prince of evil. He believed in his presence and power as
much as in the omnipresence of God and the ubiquity of
Christ’s body.

He dwells at length on the meaning of the words of
institution: "This is my body." They must be taken literally, unless
the contrary can be proved. Every departure from the literal sense is a
device of Satan, by which, in his pride and malice, he would rob man of
respect for God’s Word, and of the benefit of the
sacrament. He makes much account of the disagreement of his opponents,
and returns to it again and again, as if it were conclusive against
them. Carlstadt tortures the word "this" in the sacred text; Zwingli,
the word "is;" "Oecolampadius, the word "body;"840840 He coins new names for the three parties,
Tutisten, Tropisten, Deutisten. Erl. ed. XXX.
336. others torture and murder the whole text. All
alike destroy the sacraments. He allows no figurative meaning even in
such passages as 1 Cor. 10:4;
John
15:1; Gen. 41:26; Exod. 12:11, 12. When Paul says, Christ is a rock, he
means that he is truly a spiritual rock. When Christ says, "I am the
vine," he means a true spiritual vine. But what else is this than a
figurative interpretation in another form?

A great part of the book is devoted to the proof
of the ubiquity of Christ’s body. He explains "the
right hand of God" to mean his "almighty power." Here he falls himself
into a figurative interpretation. He ridicules the childish notion
which he ascribes to his opponents, although they never dreamed of it,
that Christ is literally seated, and immovably fastened, on a golden
throne in heaven, with a golden crown on his head.841841 "Wie man den Kindern pflegt fürzubilden
einen Gaukelhimmel, darin ein gülden Stuhl stehe und
Christus neben dem Vater sitze in einer Chorkappen und
gülden Krone, gleichwie es die Mäler malen. Denn
wo sie nicht solche kindische, fleischliche Gedanken hätten
von der rechten Hand Gottes, würden sie freilich sich nicht
so lassen anfechten den Leib Christi im Abendmahl, oder sich
bläün mit dem Spruch Augustini (welchem sie doch
sonst nichts gläuben noch keinem andern), Christus muss an
einem Ort leiblichsein, aber seine Wahrheit [Gottheit?] is
allenthalben."
Erl. ed. XXX. 56. He does not go so far as to deny the realness
of Christ’s ascension, which implies a removal of his
corporal presence. There is, in this reasoning, a strange combination
of literal and figurative interpretation. But he very forcibly argues
from the personal union of the divine and human natures in Christ, for
the possibility of a real presence; only he errs in confounding real
with corporal. He forgets that the spiritual is even more real than the
corporal, and that the corporal is worth nothing without the
spiritual.

Nitzsch and Köstlin are right when they
say that both Zwingli and Luther "assume qualities of the glorified
body of Christ, of which we can know nothing; the one by asserting a
spacial inclusion of that body in heaven, the other by asserting
dogmatically its divine omnipresence on earth."842842 Köstlin, M. Luther, II. 96
and 642; and Luthers Theologie, II. 172 sqq. We may add, that the Reformers proceeded on an
assumption of the locality of heaven, which is made impossible by the
Copernican system. For aught we know, heaven may be very near, and
round about as well as above us.

Zwingli answered Luther without delay, in an
elaborate treatise, likewise in German (but in the Swiss dialect), and
under a similar title ("That the words, ’This is my
body,’ have still the old and only sense," etc.).843843Werke, vol. II. Part II. 16-93.
Afterwards translated into Latin by Gualter, Opera Lat.II.
374-416. It is addressed to the
Elector John of Saxony, and dated June 20, 1527. Zwingli follows Luther
step by step, answers every argument, defends the figurative
interpretation of the words of institution by many parallel passages
(Gen.
41:26; Exod. 12:11; Gal. 4:24; Matt. 11:14; 1 Cor. 10:4, etc.), and discusses also the relation
of the two natures in Christ.

He disowns the imputed literal understanding of
God’s almighty hand, and says, "We have known long
since that God’s power is everywhere, that he is the
Being of beings, and that his omnipresence upholds all things. We know
that where Christ is, there is God, and where God is, there is Christ.
But we distinguish between the two natures, and between the person of
Christ and the body of Christ." He charges Luther with confounding the
two. The attributes of the infinite nature of God are not communicable
to the finite nature of man, except by an exchange which is called in
rhetoric alloeosis. The ubiquity of Christ’s body is a
contradiction. Christ is everywhere, but his body cannot be everywhere
without ceasing to be a body, in any proper sense of the term.

This book of Zwingli is much sharper than his
former writings on the subject. He abstains indeed from abusive
language, and says that God’s Word must decide the
controversy, and not opprobrious terms, as fanatic, devil, murderer,
heretic, hypocrite, which Luther deals out so freely.844844 "Es wirt hie Gottes Wort Oberhand gwünnen,
nit ’Schwärmer, Tüfel, Schalk,
Ketzer, Mörder, Ufrührer,
Glychsner [Gleissner] oder Hüchler, trotz, potz, plotz, blitz,
donder [Donner], Po, pu, pa, plump,’ und derglychen Schelt-,
Schmütz-, und Schänzelwort."Werke, II. Part II.
29. But he and his friends applied also very
unjust terms against the Lutherans, such as Capernaites, flesh-eaters,
blood-drinkers, and called their communion bread a baked God.845845Fleischfresser,
Blutsäufer, Anthropophagos, Capernaiten, brödern
Gott, gebratener Gott. Luther indignantly protests against these opprobrious epithets
in his Short Confession, "als wären wir solche tolle, unsinnige,
rasende Leute, die Christum im Sacrament localiter hielten, und
stückweise zerfrässen, wie der Wolf ein Schaaf,
und Blut söffen, wie eine Kuh das
Wasser." But in
the same breath he pays the opponents back with interest, and calls
them "Brotfresser, Weinsäufer, Seelenfresser,
Seelenmörder, eingeteufelt, durchteufelt,
überteufelt." Erl. ed. XXXII. 402-404. Moreover, Zwingli assumes an
offensive and provoking tone of superiority, which cut to the quick of
Luther’s sensibilities. Take the opening sentence: "To
Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli wishes grace and peace from God through
Jesus Christ the living Son of God, who, for our salvation, suffered
death, and then left this world in his body and ascended to heaven,
where he sits until he shall return on the last day, according to his
own word, so that you may know that he dwells in our hearts by faith
(Eph.
3:17), and not by bodily
eating through the mouth, as thou wouldest teach without
God’s Word." Towards the end he says, with reference
to Luther’s attack upon Bucer: "Christ teaches us to
return good for evil. Antichrist reverses the maxim, and you have
followed him by abusing the pious and learned Bucer for translating and
spreading your books .... Dear Luther, I humbly beseech you not to be
so furious in this matter as heretofore. If you are
Christ’s, so are we. It behooves us to contend only
with the Word of God, and to observe Christian self-control. We must
not fight against God, nor cloak our errors by his Word. God grant unto
you the knowledge of truth, and of thyself, that you may remain Luther,
and not become louvtrion.846846 Water that has been used in
washing.
The truth will prevail. Amen."

Oecolampadius wrote likewise a book in
self-defense.847847Secunda, justa et aequa responsio ad Mart.
Lutherum. The book is mentioned by Hospinian, but must be very
rare, since neither Löscher nor Walch nor Planck has seen
it. Luther now
came out, in March, 1528, with his Great "Confession on the
Lord’s Supper," which he intended to be his last word
in this controversy.848848 It was afterwards called the "Great"
Confession, to distinguish it from the "Small" Confession which he
published sixteen years later (1544). Erl. ed. XXX. 151-373; Walch, XX.
11 18 sqq. In a letter dated March 28, 1528 (De Wette, III. 296), he
informs Link that he sent copies of his Confession through John Hofmann
to Nürnberg, and speaks with his usual contempt of the
Sacramentarians. "Zwingel," he says, "est tam rudis, ut asino queat
comparari." It is
his most elaborate treatise on the eucharist, full of force and depth,
but also full of wrath. He begins again with the Devil, and rejoices
that he had provoked his fury by the defense of the holy sacrament. He
compares the writings of his opponents to venomous adders. I shall
waste, he says, no more paper on their mad lies and nonsense, lest the
Devil might be made still more furious. May the merciful God convert
them, and deliver them from the bonds of Satan! I can do no more. A
heretic we must reject, after the first and second admonition (Tit.
3:10). Nevertheless, he proceeds to an elaborate assault on the Devil
and his fanatical crew.

The "Confession" is divided into three parts. The
first is a refutation of the arguments of Zwingli and Oecolampadius;
the second, an explanation of the passages which treat of the
Lord’s Supper; the third, a statement of all the
articles of his faith, against old and new heresies.

He devotes much space to a defense of the ubiquity
of Christ’s body, which he derives from the unity of
the two natures. He calls to aid the scholastic distinction between
three modes of presence,—local, definitive, and
repletive.849849 "Es sind dreierlei Weise an einem Ort zu sein,
localiter oder circumscriptive, definitive,
repletive." He
explains this at length (XXX. 207 sqq., Erl. ed.). Local or
circumscriptive presence is the presence of wine in the barrel, where
the body fills the space; definite presence is incomprehensible, as the
presence of an angel or devil in a house or a man, or the passing of
Christ through the tomb or through the closed door; repletive presence
is the supernatural omnipresence of God which fills all space, and is
confined by no space. When Christ walked on earth, he was locally
present; after the resurrection, he appeared to the disciples
definitively and incomprehensibly; after his ascension to the right
hand of God, he is everywhere by virtue of the inseparable union of his
humanity with his divinity. He calls
Zwingli’s alloeosis "a mask of the Devil." He
concludes with these words: "This is my faith, the faith of all true
Christians, as taught in the Holy Scriptures. I beg all pious hearts to
bear me witness, and to pray for me that I may stand firm in this faith
to the end. For—which God
forbid!—should I in the temptation and agony of death
speak differently, it must be counted for nothing but an inspiration of
the Devil.850850 Zwingli made the biting remark that Luther ends
this book with the Devil, with whom he had begun his former
book. Thus help me my
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, blessed forever. Amen."

The "Confession" called out two lengthy answers of
Zwingli and Oecolampadius, at the request of the Strassburg divines;
but they add nothing new.851851 Zwingli’s answer in German is
printed in Werke, II. Part II. 94-223; in Latin, Opera,
II. 416-521. The answer of Oecolampadius, in Walch, XX. 1725
sqq.

This bitter controversy fell in the most trying
time of Luther, when he suffered greatly from physical infirmity and
mental depression, and when a pestilence raged at Wittenberg (1527),
which caused the temporary removal of the University to Jena. He
remained on the post of danger, escaped the jaws of death, and
measurably recovered his strength, but not his former cheerfulness,
good humor, and buoyancy of spirit.

829 The assertion of some biographers of Zwingli,
that he already at Glarus became acquainted with the writings of
Ratramnus and Wiclif, is without proof. He first intimates his view in
a letter to his teacher Wyttenbach, June 15, 1523, but as a secret.
(Opera, VII., 1. 297.) He published the letter of Honius, which
explains the est to be equivalent to significat, at
Zürich in March, 1525, but had received it in 1521 from two
learned visitors, Rhodius and Sagarus. See Gieseler, III. 1, 192 sq.,
note 27 (Germ. ed.); and especially Ullmann, l.c., II. 569
sq.

830Opera, III. 589. Walch gives a German
translation, XVII. 1881. Planck (II. 261 sqq.) quotes all the important
points of this letter.

831Opera, III. 145. The section on the
Lord’s Supper appeared also in a German translation.
Planck, II. 265 sqq.

838 He informed Stiefel, Jan. 1, 1527 (De Wette,
!II. 148), that he was writing a book against the "sacramentarii
turbatores." On March 2l, 1527 (III. 165), he informed the preacher
Ursinus that he had finished it, and warned him to avoid the
"Zwingliana et Oecolampadia sententia" as the very pest, since
it was "blasphema in Christi verbum et fidem." The work was
translated into German by M. Judex. The closing passages blaming Bucer
for accompanying a Latin version of
Luther’s Kirchenpostille and Bugenhagen’s commentary on
the Psalms with Zwinglian notes are omitted in the Wittenberg edition
of Luther’s Works, 1548. Amsdorf complained of this
omission, which was traced by some to Melanchthon, by others to
Rörer, the corrector of Luft’s printing
establishment. See Walch, XX. 53, and Erl. ed., XXX.
15.

847Secunda, justa et aequa responsio ad Mart.
Lutherum. The book is mentioned by Hospinian, but must be very
rare, since neither Löscher nor Walch nor Planck has seen
it.

848 It was afterwards called the "Great"
Confession, to distinguish it from the "Small" Confession which he
published sixteen years later (1544). Erl. ed. XXX. 151-373; Walch, XX.
11 18 sqq. In a letter dated March 28, 1528 (De Wette, III. 296), he
informs Link that he sent copies of his Confession through John Hofmann
to Nürnberg, and speaks with his usual contempt of the
Sacramentarians. "Zwingel," he says, "est tam rudis, ut asino queat
comparari."

849 "Es sind dreierlei Weise an einem Ort zu sein,
localiter oder circumscriptive, definitive,
repletive." He
explains this at length (XXX. 207 sqq., Erl. ed.). Local or
circumscriptive presence is the presence of wine in the barrel, where
the body fills the space; definite presence is incomprehensible, as the
presence of an angel or devil in a house or a man, or the passing of
Christ through the tomb or through the closed door; repletive presence
is the supernatural omnipresence of God which fills all space, and is
confined by no space. When Christ walked on earth, he was locally
present; after the resurrection, he appeared to the disciples
definitively and incomprehensibly; after his ascension to the right
hand of God, he is everywhere by virtue of the inseparable union of his
humanity with his divinity.

850 Zwingli made the biting remark that Luther ends
this book with the Devil, with whom he had begun his former
book.

851 Zwingli’s answer in German is
printed in Werke, II. Part II. 94-223; in Latin, Opera,
II. 416-521. The answer of Oecolampadius, in Walch, XX. 1725
sqq.